This Must End

Posted by J.D. Dunn on 07.01.2008

What McCain's service really means.




On Sunday, for the second time in a month, Gen. Wesley Clark, an NBC analyst and Obama supporter has questioned John McCain's war record as it relates to his commander-in-chief experience.

Intellectually, it's a fair argument. Wesley Clark has more experience commanding troops than John McCain has. McCain's service was limited to sorties during his service. It's true that he's never had responsibility for men under his command on a scale that resembles commander-in-chief.

However, Clark fails to grasp the root of just why McCain's story is so relevant. It's simply about character, not experience.

McCain willingly entered Naval service at a time when combat was a certainty. After nearly losing his life in the U.S.S. Forrestal fire, McCain was back at it, running sorties over Vietnam just a few months later. In October 1967, McCain was shot down over Hanoi, parachuted into a lake where he nearly drowned and was beaten by an angry mob before being taken into custody as a prisoner-of-war.

While McCain was in custody, his captors violated Geneva Conventions by refusing to treat his wounds and, instead, tortured him for information. McCain lost nearly 50 lbs. during his first few months of detainment, and his hair turned white from malnutrition.

After learning that McCain's father was a top admiral, the Vietnamese offered McCain an early repatriation, but he refused, saying he did not want to be returned before men who had been captured ahead of him.

In 1968, McCain was placed in solitary confinement. For nearly two years, McCain didn't see another soul except for his captors. In late 1968, after nearly a year in captivity, McCain became a subject of excruciating torture. Although he was already suffering from dysentery, the Vietnamese hung him up and repeatedly beat him into unconsciousness. When he awoke, he would be beaten again. After four days of excruciating torture, McCain cracked and agreed to lend his voice to an anti-American propaganda message. "Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine," McCain would later write.

To this day, McCain cannot lift his arms over his head because of the beating he took. The wounds are not only physical, though. The shame McCain felt in betraying his fellow soldiers would later cause him to contemplate suicide.

Eventually, McCain was repatriated where he received physical therapy and was deemed ready to fly again. The Vietnam War was winding down, though, so McCain was given command of a small flight unit in Florida. Under McCain, that unit won a Meritorious Unit Commendation. In 1981, John McCain retired from the Navy as a Captain.

Clark's criticism is technically correct. McCain has no commander-in-chief experience. Nor does Barack Obama. Nor did George W. Bush. Nor Bill Clinton. Nor George Herbert Walker Bush. Nor Ronald Reagan.

Simply put, the decision to send men to their deaths -- because there will *always* be casualties, even in the most successful of military interventions – is not something one can prepare for in an intellectual way. What we as Americans want is a man who is of such character that deep down he will always do the right thing, even if the decision is difficult.

John McCain proved that when he refused early repatriation. He found out his limits when the Vietnamese made him crack. He knows the consequences of his weaknesses, and he knows the inner strength it takes to admit that weakness. John McCain may never have made it to Admiral, but we as a nation would be best suited to remember that is only the case because the injuries he received while fighting for his country prevented him from scoring highly on physicals.

So Wesley Clark is dead wrong when he says that McCain's experiences in Vietnam have nothing to do with his ability to be commander-in-chief. It's about more than just the "x's" and "o's" of battle. It's about knowing the gravity of your situation. John McCain certainly knows that.

McCain is vulnerable on key issues. Attack him because his ideas are outdated. Attack him because he's out of touch with the needs of the average American. Attack him because, in spite of his experience, he's reached the wrong conclusion on foreign policy issues. Attack him because his "maverick" streak has gone soft.

But this line of argument must end, and Barack Obama must put a stop to it clearly and unequivocally. It's not only a question of pragmatism (because Obama will lose on this argument) but of morality.

Writer's Note: After this article was written, Barack Obama came out against Clark's statement. I applaud Obama for his swift action in the situation.